It's interesting that as new provisions of the 2010 health care law go into effect that largely benefit senior citizens, southwestern Michigan's congressman, U.S. Rep. Fred Upton, was on Fox News Sunday claiming Republicans have enough votes to repeal the bill.

The Huffington Post reports that Upton said, "As part of our pledge we said that we would bring up a vote to repeal
health care early. That will happen before the president's State of the Union address. We
have 242 Republicans. There will be a significant number of Democrats, I
think, that will join us. You will remember when that vote passed in
the House, last March; it only passed by seven votes."

Are they going to repeal the whole thing? Do Republicans want to prohibit parents from having their children be able to get health care on their parents' plan through the age of 26? It also means ending a provision that now will give seniors free mammograms and screenings for prostate, cardiovascular or diabetes issues. It will also put a stop to a provision which will provide a 50 percent discount for brand-name prescription drugs for seniors in the doughnut-hole. Is that what the majority of voters want?

Fox reports that Upton also acknowledged that a complete repeal may not be possible.

Fox writes, "Upton said Congress will comb through the law 'piece by piece' to try to
challenge provisions with questionable merit — such as the individual
mandate that's already being challenged in the courts and a
controversial provision that would require businesses to issue 1099 tax forms for purchases that exceed $600."

Bruce Drake at Politics Daily went into greater detail about what else Upton had to say, including his plans to battle with the Environmental Protection Agency.

"We are not going to let this administration regulate what they've been unable to legislate," said Upton.

In my last post, I described the changes in the health care bill taking effect this year. The piece has been generating a number of comments. Two that I found interesting reflect the opposite poles of thought on this issue.

Rampagephil wrote: "It is frightening to hear of people who actually believe it is their
right to health care. With regard to the story, I have already had the
effect (of the health care bill), twice now. I'm self insured through BCBSM, and my premiums have
gone up over 10 percent two times in less than a year, so almost a 25 percent
increase total. The increase is a direct response to Obamacare. Of
course, the libs who post on this site know nothing about that because
they want to be cradle to the grave wards of the state, which is why
they'll always be working for those of us who know that we are at our
best when the government stays the hell out of our way."

In response, Yell0 wrote, "I'm self-insured as well, and pissed about the rate increases as well,
but I know sticking with the current broken system is not the way to go.
My wife got pregnant and guess what? None of the private insurers offer
coverage to the self-insured for pregnancy and BCBS wouldn't offer it
because of their bureaucratic rules about changing policies once per
year. So guess what, we applied for Medicaid and didn't have to pay a
thing. And I found out 4O percent of all births in Michigan are covered by Medicaid.
So you're saying you prefer a system where you pay for both your own
coverage and 40 percent of all these births because you think private insurance
is so great? For all of this conservative griping about Obama being a
socialist, the system they are fighting tooth and nail to defend seems
quite socialist to me!"

Health care is something that affects all of us. Premiums have been skyrocketing annually while salaries are declining. While this nation offers the best care in the world, it is also the most expensive care. Why?